Quick Facts

Even with significant population increase, water

demand in Texas is projected to increase by only 22
percent, from about 18 million acre‐feet per year in
2010 to about 22 million acre‐feet per year in 2060.
This smaller increase is primarily due to declining
demand for irrigation water and increased emphasis
on municipal conservation.

128
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
3 Population and
Water Demand
Projections
The population in Texas is expected to increase 82 percent between the years
2010 and 2060, growing from 25.4 million to 46.3 million people. Growth
rates vary considerably across the state, with some planning areas more than
doubling over the planning horizon and others growing only slightly or not at all.

The first step in the regional water planning process
is to quantify current and projected population and
water demand over the 50-year planning horizon.
Both the state and regional water plans incorporate
projected population and water demand for cities,
water utilities, and rural areas throughout the state.
Water demand projections for wholesale water
providers and for manufacturing, mining, steam-
electric, livestock, and irrigation water use categories
are also used in the planning process. TWDB
developed projections in coordination with the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of
Agriculture, and the regional water planning groups
for inclusion in the regional water plans and the state
water plan. The final population and water demand
projections are approved by TWDB’s governing board.
3.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
As noted in every state water plan since the 1968
State Water Plan, Texas is a fast-growing state, and
every new Texan requires water to use in the house,
on the landscape, and in the food they consume and
materials they buy.
Texas is not only the second most populated state
in the nation, but also the state that grew the most
between 2000 and 2010, increasing from 20.8 million
residents to 25.1 million (Figure 3.1). However, such
dramatic growth has not occurred evenly across the

129
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
FIGURE 3.1. TEXAS STATE POPULATION PROJECTED TO 2060.
50,000,000
46,323,725
45,000,000
41,924,167
40,000,000 37,734,422

35,000,000 33,712,020

29,650,388
30,000,000
25,145,561
25,000,000 3.1

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0
2010* 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
*2010 population is the official population count from the U.S. Census Bureau; 2020–2060 represent projected population used in the 2012 State Water Plan.

state. Of 254 counties, 175 gained population and 79
lost population between the 2000 and 2010 censuses.
The majority of the growing counties were located in
the eastern portion of the state or along the Interstate
Highway-35 corridor.
3.1.1 PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
As required in the water planning process, the
population of counties, cities, and large non-city water
utilities were projected for 50 years, from 2010 to 2060.
During the development of the 2011 regional water
plans, due to the lack of new census data, the population
projections from the 2007 State Water Plan were used
as a baseline and adjusted where more recent data was
available from the Texas State Data Center.
The population projections for the 2006 regional
water plans and the 2007 State Water Plan were
created by a two-step process. The initial step
used county projections from the Office of the State
Demographer and the Texas State Data Center, the
agencies charged with disseminating demographic
and related socioeconomic data to the state of Texas.
These projections were calculated using the cohort-
component method: the county’s population is
projected one year at a time by applying historical
growth rates, survival rates, and net migration rates to
individual cohorts (age, sex, race, and ethnic groups).
The Texas State Data Center projections are only
done at the county level, requiring further analysis to
develop projections for the sub-county areas.
Sub-county population projections were calculated
for cities with a population greater than 500, non-
city water utilities with an average daily use greater
than 250,000 gallons, and “county-other.” County-
other is an aggregation of residential, commercial,
and institutional water users in cities with less than
500 people or non-city utilities that provide less than
an average of 250,000 gallons per day, as well as

130
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
FIGURE 3.2. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH FOR PLANNING REGIONS FOR 2010–2060.
160%

142%
140%

120%

100%
100% 96%
88%
82%
79%
80% 76% 75%
3.2
57%
60% 52%
44%
39%
40% 36%

17%
20% 12%
5%
< 1%
0%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TEXAS

unincorporated rural areas in a given county. With
the county projections as a guide, projections for the
municipal water user groups (cities and utilities)
within each county were calculated. In general, the
projections for these water user groups were based
upon the individual city or utility’s share of the county
growth between 1990 and 2000. TWDB staff developed
draft population projections with input from staff of
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Texas
Department of Agriculture. Following consultations
with the regional water planning groups, these
projections were then adopted by TWDB’s governing
board for use in the 2006 regional water plans.
For the 2011 regional water plans, the planning
groups were able to request revisions to population
projections for specific municipal water user groups,
including cities and large non-city utilities. In certain
regions, population estimates suggested that growth
was taking place faster in some of the counties and
cities than what was previously projected in the
2006 regional water plans. The planning groups
could propose revisions, with the amount of upward
population projection revision roughly limited to the
amount of under-projections, as suggested by the Texas
State Data Center’s most recent population estimates.
Population projections were revised, at least partially,
for all changes requested by the planning groups:
352 municipal water user groups in 64 counties and 9
regions. This input from the cities and utilities through
the regional water planning groups, combined with
the long-range, demographically-driven methods,
increases the accuracy of the population projections.
The statewide total of the projections for 2010 that
resulted from this process were slightly higher than
the 2010 Census population.

131
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
TABLE 3.1. TEXAS STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 2010–2060
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A 388,104 423,380 453,354 484,954 516,729 541,035
B 210,642 218,918 223,251 224,165 223,215 221,734
C 6,670,493 7,971,728 9,171,650 10,399,038 11,645,686 13,045,592
D 772,163 843,027 908,748 978,298 1,073,570 1,213,095
E 863,190 1,032,970 1,175,743 1,298,436 1,420,877 1,542,824
F 618,889 656,480 682,132 700,806 714,045 724,094 3.1
G 1,957,767 2,278,243 2,576,783 2,873,382 3,164,776 3,448,879
H 6,020,078 6,995,442 7,986,480 8,998,002 10,132,237 11,346,082
I 1,090,382 1,166,057 1,232,138 1,294,976 1,377,760 1,482,448
J 135,723 158,645 178,342 190,551 198,594 205,910
K 1,412,834 1,714,282 2,008,142 2,295,627 2,580,533 2,831,937
L 2,460,599 2,892,933 3,292,970 3,644,661 3,984,258 4,297,786
M 1,628,278 2,030,994 2,470,814 2,936,748 3,433,188 3,935,223
N 617,143 693,940 758,427 810,650 853,964 885,665
O 492,627 521,930 540,908 552,188 553,691 551,758
P 49,491 51,419 52,138 51,940 51,044 49,663
Texas 25,388,403 29,650,388 33,712,020 37,734,422 41,924,167 46,323,725

3.1.2 PROJECTIONS
Due to natural increase and a net in-migration, it is
projected that Texas will continue to have robust
growth. The state is projected to grow approximately
82 percent, from 25.4 million in 2010 to 46.3 million,
by 2060 (Figure 3.2). As illustrated in the growth over
the last decade, regional water planning areas that
include the major metropolitan areas of Houston
(Region H), the Dallas-Fort Worth area (C), Austin
(K), San Antonio (L), and the Lower Rio Grande Valley
(M) are anticipated to capture 82 percent of the state’s
growth by 2060 (Table 3.1).
Regions C, G, H, L, and M are expected to grow the
most by 2060, while regions B, F, and P are expected
to grow at the lowest rates. Individual counties are
expected to grow at varying rates (Figure 3.3).
3.1.3 ACCURACY OF PROJECTIONS
At the state level, the 2010 population projections for
the 2011 regional water plans were 1 percent greater
than the 2010 census results: 25.39 million versus
25.15 million residents (Figure 3.4). Comparisons of
2010 projections and the 2010 census for the previous
seven state water plans range from an over-projection
of 7.4 percent in the 1968 State Water Plan to an under-
projection by 11.3 percent in the “Low” series of the
1984 State Water Plan. The prior two state water plans
developed through regional water planning, the 2002
State Water Plan and the 2007 State Water Plan, under-
projected the 2010 population by only 2.6 and 1.0
percent, respectively. The 2060 population projection is
projected to be slightly higher than what was projected
in the 2007 State Water Plan: 46.3 million compared
to 45.5 million. While shorter-range projections will
always tend to be more accurate, the regional water
planning process increases overall projection accuracy
because of the use of better local information.
For geographic areas with smaller populations
(regions, counties, and water user groups), the relative
difference between projected population and actual
growth can increase. At the regional water planning
area level, 12 regions had populations that were
over-projected, most notably Region N at 9.3 percent,
Region J at 6.1 percent, and Region B at 5.7 percent

132
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
FIGURE 3.3. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN TEXAS COUNTIES.

Population growth rate 2010 to 2060

(percent change)
> 100
50 to 100
25 to 50
0 to 25
<0

TABLE 3.2. COMPARISON BETWEEN 2010 POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ACTUAL 2010 CENSUS
POPULATION DATA
Region 2000 Census 2010 Census 2010 Projected Population, 2012 SWP Projection Difference
A 355,832 380,733 388,104 1.9%
B 201,970 199,307 210,642 5.7%
C 5,254,748 6,455,167 6,670,493 3.3%
D 704,171 762,423 772,163 1.3%
E 705,399 826,897 863,190 4.4%
F 578,814 623,354 618,889 -0.7% 3
G 1,621,965 1,975,174 1,957,767 -0.9%
H 4,848,918 6,093,920 6,020,078 -1.2%
I 1,011,317 1,071,582 1,090,382 1.8%
J 114,742 127,898 135,723 6.1%
K 1,132,228 1,411,097 1,412,834 0.1%
L 2,042,221 2,526,374 2,460,599 -2.6%
M 1,236,246 1,587,971 1,628,278 2.5%
N 541,184 564,604 617,143 9.3%
O 453,997 489,926 492,627 0.6%
P 48,068 49,134 49,491 0.7%
Total 20,851,820 25,145,561 25,388,403 1.0%

133
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
 FIGURE 3.4. COMPARISON OF STATE WATER PLAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ACTUAL 2010
CENSUS POPULATION DATA.*
28

27
27 2010 Census

26
Projected Population (millions)

25.4
24.8 24.9
25
24.5
24.2
24
23.5
23 23
23
22.3
3.4
22

21

20
1968 1984-low 1984-high 1990-low 1990-high 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
*In some of the past water plans, both a high and low projection series was analyzed.

(Table 3.2). Some of the larger and faster growing for cities, utilities, and counties will be developed
regions were under-projected, including Region L at anew with the methodology described above, with
2.6 percent, Region H at 1.2 percent, and Region G at population and information derived from the 2010
0.9 percent. census. As indicated by Figure 3.5, some counties are
expected to have their population projections increase
At the county level, 23 counties were under-projected while others are expected to have more modest growth
by 5 percent or more, the largest of which were Fort than in previous projections.
Bend, Bell, Smith, Galveston, Brazos, Midland, and
Guadalupe (Figure 3.5). One hundred twenty-two 3.2 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
counties were over-projected by at least 5 percent, the Determining the amount of water needed in the future
largest of which were Dallas, Hays, Johnson, Potter, is one of the key building blocks of the regional and
Nueces, and Ellis. Apart from the larger counties in state water planning process. Projections of water
the state, many of the over-projected counties are in demands are created for six categories, including
west Texas. A complete listing of all county population • Municipal: residential, commercial, and
projections can be found in Appendix B (Projected institutional water users in (a) cities with more
Population of Texas Counties). than 500 residents, (b) non-city utilities that
provide more than 280 acre-feet a year (equivalent
As part of the process for the 2016 regional water plans to 250,000 gallons per day), and (c) a combined
and the 2017 State Water Plan, population projections

134
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
FIGURE 3.5. PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2010 POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND 2010 CENSUS
POPULATION DATA.

TWDB Population Projections vs. Census 2010

(percent difference)
> 20
10 to 20
5 to 10
0 to 5
<0

water user grouping of each county’s remaining
rural areas, referred to as county-other
• Manufacturing: industrial firms, such as food
processors, paper mills, electronics manufacturers,
aircraft assemblers, and petrochemical refineries
• Mining: key mining sectors in the state, such as
coal, oil and gas, and aggregate producers
• Steam-electric: coal and natural gas-fired and
nuclear power generation plants
• Livestock: feedlots, dairies, poultry farms, and
other commercial animal operations
• Irrigation: commercial field crop production
Similar to population projections, the 2011 regional
water plans generally used demand projections from
the 2007 State Water Plan; revisions were made for the
steam-electric water use category and other specific
water user groups due to changed conditions or the
results of region-specific studies. Water demand
projections are based upon “dry-year” conditions and
water usage under those conditions. For the 2007 State
Water Plan, the year 2000 was selected to represent the
statewide dry-year conditions for several reasons:
• For 7 of the 10 climatic regions in the state, the
year 2000 included the most months of moderate

135
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
 or worse drought between 1990 and 2000. For
the remaining three regions, the year 2000 had
the second-most months of moderate or worse
drought in that period.
• During the summer months (May to September),
when landscape and field crop irrigation is at its
peak, the majority of the state was in moderate or
worse drought during that entire period.
These water demand projections were developed to
determine how much water would be needed during
a drought. The regional water planning groups were
able to request revisions to the designated dry-year for
an area or for the resulting water demand projections
if a different year was more representative of dry-year
conditions for that particular area.
While the state’s population is projected to grow 82
percent between 2010 and 2060, the amount of water
needed is anticipated to grow by only 22 percent.
(Table 3.3, Figure 3.6). This moderate total increase is
due to the anticipated decline in irrigation water use
as well as a slight decrease in the per capita water use
in the municipal category (though the total municipal
category increases significantly due to population
growth).
3.2.1 MUNICIPAL WATER DEMAND
Municipal water demand consists of water to be
used for residential (single family and multi-family),
commercial (including some manufacturing firms
that do not use water in their production process),
and institutional purposes (establishments dedicated
to public service). The water user groups included
in this category include cities, large non-city water
utilities, and rural county-other. Large-scale industrial
facilities, whether supplied by a utility or self-supplied,
that use significant amounts of water are included in
the manufacturing, mining, or steam-electric power
136
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
categories. Correlated with a slightly higher 2060
population projection than in the 2007 State Water
Plan, the 2060 municipal water demands for the state
are projected to be 8.4 million acre-feet compared to
8.2 million acre-feet in the 2007 State Water Plan.
Municipal water demand projections are calculated
using the projected populations for cities, non-city
water utilities, and county-other and multiplying the
projected population by the total per capita water
use. Per capita water use, measured in “gallons per
capita per day,” is intended to capture all residential,
commercial, and institutional uses, including systems
loss. Gallons per capita per day is calculated for each
water user group by dividing total water use (intake
minus sales to industry and other systems) by the
population served. Total water use is derived from
responses to TWDB’s Water Use Survey, an annual
survey of ground and surface water use by municipal
and industrial entities within the state of Texas.
In general, total per capita water use was assumed
to decrease over the planning horizon due to the
installation of water-efficient plumbing fixtures
(shower heads, toilets, and faucets) as required
in the Texas Water Saving Performance Standards
for Plumbing Fixtures Act of 1991. These fixtures
are assumed to be installed as older ones require
replacement. Although developed too late to be
incorporated into the 2011 regional water plans,
additional water-saving requirements have been
mandated for dishwashers and clothes washing
machines. Such savings will be included in the next
regional water plan demand projections.
3.2.2 MANUFACTURING WATER DEMANDS
Manufacturing water demands consist of the future
water necessary for large facilities, including those
that process chemicals, oil and gas refining, food,
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND CALCULATION, 2010–2060

Water
Per Capita Water
Conservation Multiplied Projected
Use for a System Minus
Savings Due to By Population
in a Dry Year
Fixtures

TABLE 3.3. SUMMARY OF WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BY USE CATEGORY FOR 2010–2060
(ACRE-FEET PER YEAR)
Percent of
Category 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2060 Demand
Municipal 4,851,201 5,580,979 6,254,784 6,917,722 7,630,808 8,414,492 38.3%
Manufacturing 1,727,808 2,153,551 2,465,789 2,621,183 2,755,335 2,882,524 13.1%
Mining 296,230 313,327 296,472 285,002 284,640 292,294 1.3%
Steam-electric 733,179 1,010,555 1,160,401 1,316,577 1,460,483 1,620,411 7.4%
Livestock 322,966 336,634 344,242 352,536 361,701 371,923 1.7%
Irrigation 10,079,215 9,643,908 9,299,464 9,024,866 8,697,560 8,370,554 38.1%
Texas 18,010,599 19,038,954 19,821,152 20,517,886 21,190,527 21,952,198

FIGURE 3.6. WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BY USE CATEGORY (ACRE-FEET PER YEAR).*
12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000
Irrigation
Municipal
6,000,000 Steam-electric
Manufacturing
Mining
4,000,000
Livestock

2,000,000

0
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
*Water demand projections for the livestock and mining water use categories are similar enough to be indistinguishable at this scale.

137
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
TABLE 3.4. PER CAPITA WATER USE FOR THE 40 LARGEST CITIES IN TEXAS FOR 2008–2060
(GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY)
City or 2008 2008 Residential 2020 2040 2060
Place Name Per Capita Use Per Capita Use Per Capita Use Per Capita Use Per Capita Use
Frisco 254 158 289 289 283
Midland 235 159 254 248 247
Plano 223 113 253 250 249
Richardson 216 128 278 274 272
Dallas 213 95 252 247 246
Beaumont 206 140 209 203 201
McAllen 202 114 197 193 193
College Station 193 92 217 213 212
Irving 193 104 249 246 246
Waco 193 72 183 183 183
Fort Worth 192 75 207 203 202
Longview 190 75 120 115 115
Amarillo 188 108 201 201 201
McKinney 183 122 240 240 240
Tyler 177 103 255 249 248
3.4
Austin 171 102 173 171 169
Carrollton 162 102 188 184 183
Odessa 160 108 202 195 194
Arlington 157 100 179 175 174
Sugar Land 155 94 214 211 211
Corpus Christi 154 80 171 166 165
Laredo 154 88 192 189 188
Round Rock 154 96 194 191 191
Grand Prairie 152 89 152 148 148
Denton 150 60 179 176 176
Garland 150 90 160 156 155
San Antonio 149 92 139 135 134
Lewisville 143 75 173 171 170
Lubbock 141 93 202 196 195
Abilene 139 73 161 155 154
Wichita Falls 138 88 172 170 168
El Paso 137 98 130 130 130
Brownsville 134 63 221 217 217
Houston 134 65 152 147 146
Mesquite 134 90 164 168 168
San Angelo 131 91 193 187 186
Killeen 127 82 179 174 167
Pearland 112 105 127 124 124
Pasadena 109 67 110 105 104
Missouri City 86 68 167 167 169

138
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
TABLE 3.5. COMPARISON OF 2009 WATER USE ESTIMATES WITH PROJECTED 2010 WATER USE
(ACRE-FEET PER YEAR)
2009 Estimated 2010 Projected Estimated Difference
Category Water Use1 Water Use from Projection
Municipal 4,261,585 4,851,201 -12.2%
Manufacturing 1,793,911 1,727,808 3.8%
Mining2 168,273 296,230 -43.2%
Steam-Electric Power 454,122 733,179 -38.1% 3
Livestock 297,047 322,966 -8.0%
Irrigation 9,256,426 10,079,215 -8.2%
Total 16,231,364 18,010,599 -9.9%
1
Annual water use estimates are based upon returned water use surveys and other estimation techniques. These estimates may be updated when
more accurate information becomes available.
2
The 2009 mining use estimates represent an interpolation of estimated 2008 and 2010 volumes (UT Bureau of Economic Geology, 2011)

COMPARING PER CAPITA WATER USE
Since the 2007 State Water Plan, there has been
an increasing amount of interest in comparing
how much water is used by various cities (Table
3.4). Unfortunately, this measure can often be
inappropriate and misleading. There are a number
of valid reasons that cities would have differing per
capita water use values, including
• climatic conditions;
• amount of commercial and institutional
customers;
• construction activities;
• price of water;
• income of the customers;
• number of daily or seasonal residents; and
• age of infrastructure.
Per capita water use tends to be higher in cities
with more arid climates; more non-residential
businesses; high-growth areas requiring more
new building construction; lower cost of water;
higher-income residents; more commuters or other
part-time residents who are not counted in the
official population estimates; and with more aging
infrastructure, which can result in greater rates of
water loss.
Because of the variations between water providers,
the total municipal per capita water use as described
earlier is not a valid tool for comparison. As a start
to providing more detailed and useful information,
the annual residential per capita water use of cities
in the state water plan has been calculated since
2007, in addition to the more comprehensive total
municipal per capita use. Residential per capita
use is calculated using the volume sold directly to
single- and multi-family residences. As more water
utilities are encouraged to track their sales volumes
by these categories, a more complete picture of
residential per capita water use across the state
will be available in the years to come. Two bills
passed in the recent 82nd Texas Legislature in 2011
address this type of water use information: Senate
Bill 181 and Senate Bill 660, both of which require
standardization of water use and conservation
calculations for specific sectors of water use.

139
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
paper, and other materials. Demands in the 2012 State
Water Plan were based on those from the 2007 State
Water Plan. Demand projections were drafted as part
of a contracted study (Waterstone Environmental
Hydrology and Engineering, Inc. and The Perryman
Group, 2003) that analyzed historical water use and
trends and projected industrial activity. The projections
incorporated economic projections for the various
manufacturing sectors, general economic output-
water use coefficients, and efficiency improvements
of new technology. Future growth in water demand
was assumed to be located in the same counties in
which such facilities currently exist unless input from
the regional water planning group identified new or
decommissioned facilities.
Some regions requested increases to the 2007 State
Water Plan projections due to changed conditions.
Manufacturing demands are projected to grow 67
percent from 1.7 million acre-feet to 2.9 million acre
feet. This 2060 projection of 2.9 million acre-feet is an
increase of roughly 12 percent over the 2.6 million
acre-feet projected in the 2007 State Water Plan.
3.2.3 MINING WATER DEMANDS
Mining water demands consist of water used in the
exploration, development, and extraction processes
of oil, gas, coal, aggregates, and other materials. The
mining category is the smallest of the water user
categories and is expected to decline 1 percent from
296,230 acre-feet to 292,294 acre-feet between 2010
and 2060. In comparison, the 2007 State Water Plan
mining water demands ranged from 270,845 acre-
feet to 285,573 acre-feet from 2010 and 2060. Mining
demands increased in a number of counties reflecting
initial estimates of increased water use in hydraulic
fracturing operations in the Barnett Shale area.
140
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
Similar to manufacturing demand projections, the
current projections were generated as part of the 2007
State Water Plan and used a similar methodology:
analyzing known water use estimates and economic
projections. The mining category has been particularly
difficult to analyze and project due to the isolated and
dispersed nature of oil and gas facilities, the transient
and temporary nature of water used, and the lack of
reported data for the oil and gas industry.
Due to the increased activity that had occurred in
oil and gas production by hydraulic fracturing, in
2009 TWDB contracted with the University of Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology (2011) to conduct an
extensive study to re-evaluate the water used in
mining operations and to project such uses for the
next round of water planning. Initial results from the
study indicate that, while fracturing and total mining
water use continues to represent a small portion (less
than 1 percent) of statewide water use, percentages
can be significantly larger in some localized areas. In
particular, the use of water for hydraulic fracturing
operations is expected to increase significantly
through 2020. The results of this study will form the
basis for mining water demand projections for the
2016 regional water plans. Future trends in these types
of water use will be monitored closely in the upcoming
planning process.
3.2.4 STEAM-ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
WATER DEMANDS
The steam-electric power generation category consists
of water used for the purposes of producing power.
Where a generation facility diverts surface water,
uses it for cooling purposes, and then returns a large
portion of the water to the water body, the water use for
the facility is only the volume consumed in the cooling
process and not returned. For the 2011 regional water
plans, the University of Texas Bureau of Economic
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
Geology (2008) completed a TWDB-funded study
of steam-electric power generation water use and
projected water demands. Regional water planning
groups reviewed the projections developed in this
study and were encouraged to request revisions
where better local information was available.
A challenge for the projection of such water use is the
very mobile nature of electricity across the state grid.
While the demand may occur where Texans build
houses, the power and water use for its production
can be in nearly any part of the state. Beyond the
specific future generation facilities on file with the
Public Utility Commission of Texas, the increased
demand for power generation and the accompanying
use of water was assumed to be located in the counties
that currently have power generation capabilities.
Steam-electric water use is expected to increase by 121
percent over the planning horizon, from 0.7 million
acre-feet in 2010 to 1.6 million acre-feet in 2060. This
2060 projection remains consistent with the projection
of 1.5 million acre-feet in the 2007 State Water Plan.
3.2.5 IRRIGATION WATER DEMANDS
Irrigated agriculture uses over half of the water in
Texas, much of the irrigation taking place in Regions
A, O, and M and in the rice producing areas along the
coast. Projections in the current regional water plans
were based on those from the 2006 regional plans,
with revisions to select counties based upon better
information. Region A conducted a study to develop
revised projections on a region-wide basis. Irrigation
projections have been continually adjusted at the
beginning of each planning cycle, with the previous
projections being used as a base to be adjusted by
factors and trends including
• changes in the amount of acreage under irrigation;
• increases in irrigation application efficiency;
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN
• changes in canal losses for surface water
diversions; and
• changes in cropping patterns.
Irrigation demand is expected to decline over the
planning horizon by 17 percent, from 10 million acre-
feet in 2010 to 8.3 million acre-feet in 2060, largely
due to anticipated natural improvements in irrigation
efficiency, the loss of irrigated farm land to urban
development in some regions, and the economics of
pumping water from increasingly greater depths.
The projections are slightly reduced from the 2007
State Water Plan, which included a statewide 2010
projection of 10.3 million acre-feet and 8.6 million
acre-feet in 2060.
3.2.6 LIVESTOCK WATER DEMANDS
Livestock water demand includes water used in the
production of various types of livestock including
cattle (beef and dairy), hogs, poultry, horses, sheep,
and goats. Projections for livestock water demand
are based upon the water use estimates for the base
“dry year” and then generally held constant into the
future. Some adjustments have been made to account
for shifts of confined animal feeding operations into
or out of a county. The volume of water needed for
livestock is projected to remain fairly constant over
the planning period, increasing only by 15 percent
over 50 years, from 322,966 acre-feet in 2010 to 371,923
acre-feet in 2060. The livestock use projections from
the 2007 State Water Plan ranged from 344,495 acre-
feet in 2010 to 404,397 acre-feet in 2060.
3.2.7 COMPARISON OF WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
AND WATER USE ESTIMATES
Water demand projections for the 2012 State Water
Plan and 2011 regional water plans were developed
early in the five-year planning cycle and for this reason
include projected water demands for the year 2010. To
141
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
provide a benchmark of the relative accuracy of the
projections, the projected 2010 volumes are compared
with preliminary TWDB water use estimates from the
most recent year available, 2009, an appropriate year
for comparison as it was generally considered the
second driest year of the last decade statewide, and
the projected water demands are intended to be in
dry-year conditions.
Overall, the statewide 2009 water use estimates are
10 percent less than the 2010 projections (Table 3.5).
Projected water use can in general be expected to
represent an upper bound to actual water use. One
reason is that, even when a relatively dry year is
experienced, not all parts of the state will experience
the most severe drought, while the projections are
calculated under the assumption that all water users
are in drought conditions. Projections also are intended
to reflect the water use that would take place if there
were no supply restrictions. In practice, especially
for municipal water users, water conservation and
drought management measures to reduce water
demand are implemented. In the context of water
planning, such reductions are not automatically
assumed to occur and thus reduce projected water
use, but are more properly accounted for as water
management strategies expected to be implemented
in times of drought.
In each of the agricultural categories, estimated
water use was 8 percent less than projected. Large
differences occurred in the industrial categories
of mining and steam-electric power. More recent
research has indicated that the mining use projected
for 2010 in this plan is overstated, and will be adjusted
for the next planning cycle. Some of the difference
in electric generation may be explained by increased
efficiencies, but incomplete data returns for the 2009
estimates may also be a factor. The 2009 water use
142
Chapter 3: Population and Water Demand Projections
estimate for the municipal category is 12 percent less
than the projected volume.
While 2009 was a relatively dry year, it did not
approach the severity of drought conditions being
experienced by most of Texas in the current year,
2011. Water use estimates for 2011 will provide a more
representative comparison with 2010 projections, and
will be incorporated into water demand projections for
the next planning cycle, when they become available.
REFERENCES
UT (University of Texas) Bureau of Economic Geology,
2008, Water Demand Projections of Power Generation
in Texas: Prepared for the Texas Water Development
Board, http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/data/socio/
est/final_pwr.pdf.
UT (University of Texas) Bureau of Economic Geology,
2011, Current and Projected Water Use in the Texas
Mining and Oil and Gas Industry: Prepared for
the Texas Water Development Board, http://www.
twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/0904830939_
MiningWaterUse.pdf.
Waterstone Environmental Hydrology and
Engineering, Inc. and The Perryman Group, 2003,
Water Demand Methodology and Projections for
Mining and Manufacturing: Prepared for the Texas
Water Development Board, http://www.twdb.state.
tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/2001483397.pdf.
WATER FOR TEXAS 2012 STATE WATER PLAN